If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

UsingEnglish.com is partnering with Gymglish to give you a free one-month trial of this online English training course. Activate your free month of lessons (special offer for new users, with no obligation to buy) - and receive a level assessment!

Trying to find a definition for the term object that works

I am trying to understand objects and am having multiple problems in doing so. I think that in order to understand anything, a good definition is vital, but I can't find a decent definition (ie one that you can't disprove with commonly occurring examples).

Most grammar books go with the "noun or noun equivalent that receives the action of the verb" definition but this has obvious problems, not least that terms like "her mother" in sentences such as

She resembles her mother

would not be classed as objects using this definition, even if we use it loosely, so we need a different one.

I have the Oxford dictionary of English grammar and it says that while objects are usually said to be "affected" by the verb (noting that "affected" must be interpreted loosely)the term (object) is essentially a syntactic rather than semantic one. It does not bother to give any syntactic definition though, having said this, rendering it not particularly useful. Sigh.

From looking at lists of verbs with their objects (direct, indirect and both), it would definitely appear that the common denominator is syntactic rather than semantic but I still can't work out what it is. Any syntactic definition I come up with doesn't exclude terms like "to France" in phrases like

She went to France

And I still don't really understand why the verb to go is usually classed as intransitive. If you look at the three sentences

(1) She went to France

(2) She went to her mother

(3) She spoke to her mother

how can you say that "her mother" is not just as much of an object in (2) as in (3)? And if so, how is it any different from "France" in (1).

Re: Trying to find a definition for the term object that works

Yes, of course I realise this. But if most dictionaries are confident enough to class "resemble" as a transitive verb, they must have a basis for doing so; some understanding of the term that goes beyond "a noun/noun equivalent which is affected by the verb". I'm trying to further my understanding of how these classifications are made.

Re: Trying to find a definition for the term object that works

I do think "her mother" is an object of the verb resemble, but it isn't based on the definitions given by most textbooks. Thus I need to find a definition that accommodates examples like this one. And I wouldn't say that it's grey, rather than black and white; I think it is unambiguously NOT an object IF we define object as being the entity that receives the action of the verb. A grey example would be something like "she sees the star" in which the "action" does not really affect the star but can nonetheless be seen to be directed towards it, whether intentionally or unintentionally. "Her mother" serves more as a point of comparison in the given example.

Re: Trying to find a definition for the term object that works

By some definitions resemble is semi-copular, which might solve some of my problems (why don't dictionaries recognise copular verbs? - they don't even class be as being a copula. The problem still remains with go ​though.

i. His eldest child resembles Geoffrey.
ii. He says that since "resemble" is a so-called middle verb (NOT allowing the passive), you may call "Geoffrey" a so-called
"verb complement" instead of "object."
iii. He says that for some people "resemble" can take the passive: (?) Geoffrey is resembled by his eldest child. [The ? = Some native speakers accept that sentence; others do not.] Dr. Quirk says that "most" native speakers consider "resemble" a middle verb (that is, NO passive).

Re: Trying to find a definition for the term object that works

Thanks TheParser! Yes, that is very helpful, although I don't have the Quirk book. I just googled it and it costs about £100!? Is this normal? The Huddleston and Pullman (spelling?) costs even more.

I think these middle verbs are semi-copular from what I can deduce from various sources and that certainly makes more sense than calling them transitive. But then why do the dictionaries persist in defining them as such when they aren't really?

Re: Trying to find a definition for the term object that works

Originally Posted by luckycharmer

But then why do the dictionaries persist in defining them as such when they aren't really?

Dictionaries are not grammars Their compilers simply try to do the best they can in a very limited space. For most practical purposes, 'resemble' functions as a transitive verb. Native speakers know from experience that it is not used in the passive. Those learners who attempt to use it in the passive soon learn that they can't.

I doubt that (Quirk's opinion, not that he wrote it). Few native speakers have heard of the term 'middle verb' - it's an expression understood only by those who read serious books on grammar. Note that TheParser, who reads a lot about English, had not come across the term until today. I think Quirk means that most native speakers know that it is not used in the passive.